What About The Children?

[the_great_she_elephant]

I am amazed and disgusted that in all the indignation over what Gillian Triggs should or shouldn't have done or who said or didn't say what to her, not ONE SINGLE POLITICIAN  except, finally, Malcolm Turnbull, has commented in any way on the contents of her report..

She found that  over a 15-month period from January 2013 to March 2014, spanning both the Labor and Coalition governments  there were 233 recorded assaults involving children and 33 incidents of reported sexual assault. 

If these findings are true - and as far as I know nobody has so far disputed them -   then what is going to be done about it? Who had the duty of care? who is going to be held responsible. What measures are going to be put in place to stop this abuse happening in future?

Both Gillian Triggs and George Brandis are astute and comparitively wealthy adults able to instruct top  legal practitioners to protect their reputaions - but who is going to protect the safety of these children? How many more children have been abused since March 2014? Is a child perhaps being abused in a detention centre  even while you are reading this post? 

Surely to goodness after all that was learned from the Children In Care Royal Commission this report cannot simply be put in a "don't want to know" basket while both sides of Pariament try to gain political mileage out the motives of the Human Rghts Commissioner or the behaviour of the Attourney General.

At some point -though probably not in the lifetime of this government  or even  the one that follows it - there will inevitably be a Royal Commission into the treatment of children in detention centre. what do you imagine its findings are likely to be?

[vicr3000]

Departmental officer correct her.

She was doing the investigating, it is up to HER to ask questions and get the facts right,
Not anyone else.

If she cant understand what CUSTOMS means on a shirt, god help us.

[gleee58]

http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/legcon_ctte/estimates/sup_1415/AGD/AHRC_Triggs_101214.pdf

[gleee58]

Professor Gillian Triggs, President

(Check against delivery, 24 February 2015)

The Report of the Commission’s Inquiry into the impact of immigration detention on children, The Forgotten Children, has now been tabled in Parliament and is available to the public– more than three months after it was provided to the Government. The Inquiry took place from January 2013 to October 2014, covering the periods of both the former and current governments. The bipartisan nature of government responsibility is clear on any fair reading of this balanced and objective Report.

The medical and other data in the Report provide credible and objective evidence that mandatory, prolonged, often isolated and indefinite detention, has a significantly damaging effect on children.

On the latest figures available to the Commission, about 330 children remain in closed detention in Australia and Nauru. The Commission wholeheartedly welcomes the release by the Government of about 700 children over the last few months. We hope that our Inquiry has played some role in encouraging this change in policy.

In recent weeks, issues have been raised about the decision by the Commission to conduct a national Inquiry into the impact of prolonged immigration detention on children.  I would like to respond to these concerns by setting out the Commission’s statutory functions and the work of the Commission in respect of children in detention and by explaining why the Inquiry was called.
In summary, the Inquiry was called in response to mounting concern about  the impact of prolonged detention of children, the length of detention and the significant numbers that remained in detention.

The documents we have given you show that while I regularly discussed concerns about children in immigration detention with ministers for immigration, I did not specifically refer to the proposed review or inquiry with any minister in the previous government.

If the Senate was confused about this at the last Estimates, the documents provided address this issue squarely and, I believe, there need be no further misunderstanding.

The AHRC has been on record since mandatory detention was first introduced in 1992, reporting to Parliament that prolonged detention of children amounts to arbitrary detention under the ICCPR and the CROC. The law is well settled : arbitrary detention without charge or trial by our peers, is contrary to the rule of law and to the international obligations to which Australia has agreed.

The aim of the Inquiry was not to revisit this well recognized law but rather to conduct an indepth assessment of the medical and developmental impacts on children of lengthy immigration detention. 

The Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 provides the Commission with functions to inquire into:
‘any act or practice that may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human right”. 

A ‘human right’ is defined by reference to certain human rights treaties to which Australia is a party, including the ICCPR and the CROC. These treaties have not been legislated directly as part of Australian law by Parliament. The consequence is that, while the government of the day may act according to Australian laws, these actions may well be contrary to our international legal obligations.

In the absence of laws that apply international human rights in Australia, the Commission provides a vital and respected check and balance to ensure our democracy is a just one.

With this legal background I would like to turn to issues that have been raised about the  Inquiry.

The Commission has worked tirelessly over the last decade, up to and including 2013, reporting on the failure of both governments of the time to comply with their international obligations.

I seek to table a document that summarises the more than 180 separate pieces of work completed by the Commission on immigration detention and asylum seekers over the past five years.

In July 2012, my predecessor, the Hon Catherine Branson reported the results of her Inquiry into the Age determination process for children held in detention.

Following that Inquiry, the Commission was fully committed to a program of action:

• Conducting monitoring visits to detention centres in mainland Australia and Christmas island; within 8 weeks of my appointment in July 2012, I was at Villawood Detention Centre and 4 weeks later I was on Christmas Island interviewing children and their families. The Report of these visits was the first of three such reports in my first 15 months as President.
• The Commission issued 36 reports to Parliament in relation to 89 complainants between 2010-2014 in respect of immigration detention and asylum seekers, each of which must be independently assessed.
•  Providing a Report in October 2013 to Parliament -the “Snapshot Report”- which considered the continued detention of the children
• Providing submissions to Parliamentary Committees examining proposed changes to the Migration Act and other Acts
• Intervening in High Court matters relating to the detention of asylumer seekers, (CPFC and Megaming v The Queen)
• Meeting Ministers of Immigration raising our concerns about children in detention centres in Curtin, Manus Island and Christmas Island, the situation of unaccompanied minors and a repeated urging of the government to ensure that the detention of children is a matter of last resort. My records show that issues relating to children in detention were raised in every meeting that I had with the Minister.

Secondly, questions have been raised about the precise timing of the Inquiry. I shall try to be as clear as possible.

The decision to hold an Inquiry was one that evolved gradually over time and reflected many factors; of overarching importance were the high numbers of children held in detention, numbers that fluctuated considerably over many months, other factors were the increasing periods of time for which the children were being held, the forthcoming election in September when information would not be available, the on going planning process throughout 2013 that envisaged a review of the last 10 years detention policy, and finally, the need to ensure the Commission had the necessary resources to conduct an Inquiry.

Good governance of the Commission requires annual planning. We are not able to drop all current projects to start an Inquiry without advance planning. The Commission confirmed its work plan for 2013-14 on 26 June 2013. The program of work envisaged:

• a ‘snapshot’ report on the state of the immigration detention system (completed September 2013)
• a revamp of our web materials and fact sheets (completed by late 2013)
• a ‘10 year review’ of the situation of children in detention to commence only once the above activities were completed and subject to resources.

On 12 December 2013, the Commission formally approved an updated project plan for the 10 year review that proposed it take the form of a full Inquiry with powers to compel the production of evidence. The long planned Review – now an Inquiry- was all the more important in light of the worsening condition of the children as their period of detention lengthened.

The first official notification that the Commission was considering undertaking a 10 year review was provided to Minister Morrison and the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection on 19 and 20 November 2013 respectively. The exact form the review would take was not discussed.

The Commission notified the Attorney-General, as well as the Department of Immigration and Border Protection of the inquiry on 22 January 2014 and provided them with the proposed terms of reference for the inquiry.

Senators, I wish to table a further document that relates to the Inquiry. This contains two graphs which detail the number of children in detention over time, and the length of time that were detained.

The graphs show the following:

• Between the peak time in July 2013 and October 2013, the former government released about 800 children. There was ni urgency to call an Inquiry at that time. After the initial significant reduction in the number of children in detention up to October 2013, the numbers stagnated.
• When the inquiry was publically announced in February 2014, there were 1138 (including Nauru) children in closed detention, about the same number as the previous October 2013. In short, very few childrenwere being released.
• Significantly, the period of time for which they were being held was lengthening.
• In October 2013, it became clear that children were being held on average for 4.6 months. That time period has continued to grow such that when the Report of the Inquiry was presented to the Attorney in November last year, the time children had spent in detention had blown out to over 14 months. 
• These facts confirmed that the Commission’s planned 10 year Review was still appropriate.

The documents we have given you confirm my advice to this Senate Committee that I regularly discussed concerns about children in immigration detention with all ministers for immigration.

In summary, the Inquiry was called because of the significant numbers of children held in immigration detention and the lengthening period of time for which they were held. These factors led to the long planned 10year review to be upgraded to a full Inquiry.

Over the last 10years, the Commission’s has extensive work in this area documents beyond doubt the trauma and damage that is being inflicted on children.

Australians can now read our Report and make up their own minds about the consequences of the continued breach of our international obligations to these children.

May I ask that members of the Senate read the Report and consider the findings and act on the recommendations we have made. The Commissioners and I are happy to answer any questions you may have.

[gleee58]

---

@vicr3000 wrote:
Departmental officer correct her.

She was doing the investigating, it is up to HER to ask questions and get the facts right,
Not anyone else.

If she cant understand what CUSTOMS means on a shirt, god help us.

---

No, he did not. He basically called her a liar and he did not offer any information to clarify who was armed.  

She did her job.  The procedure is that the commission submits a draft to the department and the department responds.  The commission then takes the departmental response into account and finalises the report, making any changes necessary.

Obvously, they didn't have CUSTOMS on their shirts.

[vicr3000]

All customs, immigration and navy staff have names on their shirts.

[vicr3000]

"Obvously, they didn't have CUSTOMS on their shirts."

Prove it.

Australian Gov't Agenices carry external identification on them, especially when armed

and those outside of Australia when interacting with civilians wear things like shirts with

Customs on them to make it clear who is who.

The military of course wear a uniform.

The same as most other countries agencies.

[gleee58]

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

"Obvously, they didn't have CUSTOMS on their shirts."

Prove it.

Australian Gov't Agenices carry external identification on them, especially when armed

and those outside of Australia when interacting with civilians wear things like shirts with

Customs on them to make it clear who is who.

The military of course wear a uniform.

The same as most other countries agencies.

---

I don't have to prove it.

I'm not the one arguing about something I did not see and do not comprehend.

Nor is my judgement based on political bias as most of those who are attacking are.

It's funny how when people mention Julie Bishop's comments about dying people when representing the asbestos bosses mono comes to her defence saying she was just doing her job. On the other hand when Triggs is unfairly attacked for doing her job mono comes along to attack and accuses her of political bias.  Then he calls others names because he perceives them to be biased.  What a joke.  

I read and watched all the evidence.  Please find where, in the report, that it says the guards are armed.

You won't because the commission did their job and corrected the report as required after receiving the response from the department.

It's all clearly set out in the evidence and it's all clearly spelled out under questioning.

[gleee58]

Apart from the fact that we forget the children during the argument. We also forget the report is now 4 months old and it's now 2 years from the beginning of the period it covered.

[the_great_she_elephant]

TGSE:   "Did she lie when she said she was offered a prestigious position if she resigned as President of the HRC"

How would anyone know?  when she declared at the Senate hearing:

"I don't recall the precise words but I know that he said that I would be offered other work with the Government."

OK, John, here's a challennge dor you. Scroll back a bit and read a post, from this thread - for argument's sake let's make it Glee's #358. Read it through to yourself and then read it out aloud. Now go away and have a cup of tea and do a few jobs around the house. Come back two hours later, sit down at your computer tell us what point you believe Glee was trying to make. Then  see if you can  type out the precise words he/she used.. If you can't remember them exactly, will that mean #358 never existed or didn't mean what youunderstood it to mean when you read it?

[vicr3000]

---

@gleee58 wrote:

Apart from the fact that we forget the children during the argument. We also forget the report is now 4 months old

and it's now 2 years from the beginning of the period it covered.

---

No, the Children haven't been forgotten, the Gov't has it's policy and it will stick with it to it's conclusion,

regardless of what the AHRC says.

Might not be as fast as some like but they will mostly be all released and since we don't have the huge numbers

coming in that we did, then at the conclusion hopefully the island centres can be closed down.

An observation re the report. Triggs seemed to have included quite a few drawings from children.

I don't see a need to put these in the report. Of course the media jump on them and assign all sorts

of things to them but they don't add to the report in any way.